Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rally, a novel privacy-first data sharing platform

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 201 posts

Re: Rally, a novel privacy-first data sharing platform

#161

Post by 9wzYQbTYsAIc »

kortilla wrote: post #149
9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If Rally is transparent about how your data is used If Rally was not transparent about this, then you would not have seen that and would not have gotten emotionally triggered by it. But given that you’ve identified a visceral opposition to that, you should consider not opting-in to that particular study.

> you would not have seen that and would not have gotten emotionally triggered Don’t do that here. The comment is about Rally pretending to be about altruistic academic research while actually being a platform for Mozilla product development.

My reply predates this edit from the parent:

> Sorry, I definitely did not put as much thought into my comment as I should have and I left out the critical piece of information that really ticked me off.

Re: Rally, a novel privacy-first data sharing platform

#162

Post by Nicksil »

elliekelly wrote: post #159
Nicksil wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That wasn't chastising you. I don't know you so there was no way I could have known how long you've been on the internet nor your depth in experience in identity within it. I was attempting to point out some of the bigger factors feeding into your complaint, regarding the potential of people harassing you, with the intent of no more than to bring attention to something you may have overlooked, as humans tend to do so…

I don’t think it’s in any way “combative” to point out that I am indeed competent and capable of interacting with the online world safely without the assistance patronizing of strangers on the internet. And, whether your intention or not, that’s exactly what your comment was: patronizing. With undertones of “well what did you think would happen when you present yourself in such a way”. Whether you’re willing to admit…

Now that's just nuts.

Re: Rally, a novel privacy-first data sharing platform

#163

Post by renewiltord »

Whatever. You can have my data for scientific purposes but if you fuck this up I will hunt down the PI and smear shit on nis door.

You better keep the PI in America because I’m not doing an intercontinental to smear shit.

I’m not reading your long ass blog post though. Make it a Chrome extension and stick the CTA in the first two sentences.

Re: Rally, a novel privacy-first data sharing platform

#164

Post by renewiltord »

miked85 wrote: post #52

I am failing to see the motivation for anyone to use this. If you cared about privacy, you wouldn't share your data in the first place. If you didn't care about privacy, there is still no reason to opt in.

Yeah, I’m big on this stuff because I like scientific studies to be biased towards me. So like, imagine there is some treatment for a disease that only works on people who live in San Francisco.

My ideal outcome is that the study is accidentally biased to serve us and that all of America pays for this medicine.

Ideally, all outcomes are tailored to me through sheer participation bias.

Sure sure, everyone knows that sampling bias exists but there is a systemic human bias to what has been measured. I intend to exploit that.

And as for my data, Equifax got the most sensitive stuff so I’m not worried about anything else.

Re: Rally, a novel privacy-first data sharing platform

#165

Post by 9wzYQbTYsAIc »

xpe wrote: post #119
9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m being charitable and leaving room for the possibility that they provide a tighter set of policies for some studies or revise their general policy to make commercial use be a study-by-study determination. Or, just don’t opt-in to any of the Rally studies. Your call, it’s your data.

> Or, just don’t opt-in to any of the Rally studies. Your call, it’s your data. First, a caveat. I don't know the people behind the comments in this sub-thread. I have read almost all of them and find them to be informative and thoughtful. So thanks for that. That said, when I read a comment like the above, what I hear is a mentality of "you are an individual, with power, if you don't like it, act individually". That…

As always, with your replies to me, your spirit/style is much appreciated.

> It overlooks the power and importance of individuals discussing and organizing together, which is often much more powerful than simply "voting with your feet".

I did indeed purposefully overlook that, but only out of a working assumption that the consent of the governed is there, overall.

If there truly is no consent of the governed for informed consent being a sufficient tool for empowerment in these cases, then there are deeper topics that need to be discussed. Some of those topics could lead to conclusions that may have catastrophic implications for modern society, if not discussed in a reasonable and considerate manner. Cancelling entire industries, in one fell swoop, are some of the conclusions being drawn in the current climate, for example.

If there is consent of the governed that opt-in is a sufficient tool for empowerment in these cases, then these cases may ultimately be logically reducible to failures to uphold the laws, as they currently exist.

To further expound on the latter line of reasoning, these cases seem to anecdotally belong to a few categories: 1) I don’t like advertising, 2) I didn’t know that they could do that, 3) I don’t want anyone watching what I do.

Category 1) is a completely understandable sentiment with implications that I currently lack the energy to comment upon.

Category 2) should be taken as that individual’s human rights having been violated. Specifically, that situation could arguably be pursued in the United States under the ADA. Enforced broadly, this could have catastrophic consequences to modern society. Enforced judiciously, this could provide much needed social progress.

Category 3) is a completely understandable sentiment with implications that I currently lack the energy to comment upon.

The category 2) implications do seem to be most relevant to society, at this juncture.

edit: I can imagine that a class-action ADA lawsuit against a carefully selected set of defendants (if legally possible) could lead to resolution of this matter in the courts, without calling on the legislature to comment on topics for which they are under-qualified to comment upon.

Re: Rally, a novel privacy-first data sharing platform

#166

Post by 9wzYQbTYsAIc »

xpe wrote: post #125
9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m being charitable and leaving room for the possibility that they provide a tighter set of policies for some studies or revise their general policy to make commercial use be a study-by-study determination. Or, just don’t opt-in to any of the Rally studies. Your call, it’s your data.

> I’m being charitable and leaving room for the possibility that they provide a tighter set of policies for some studies or revise their general policy to make commercial use be a study-by-study determination. I just reviewed these pages: [1]: Mozilla Rally Privacy Policy https://rally.mozilla.org/privacy-policy/index.html [2]: Political and COVID-19 News https://rally.mozilla.org/current-studies/political-and-covi..…

> Mozilla is unlikely to want to modify its general privacy policy based on particular discussions with each organization involved in a study

They may ultimately have a legal responsibility to do so, depending on the nature of their contracts with their research partners. I’m not a lawyer, but if I were, I’d be digging into the case law to see if Mozilla + (”public university” or “federal funds”) = “a combination that must meet all severally applicable laws”.

Re: Rally, a novel privacy-first data sharing platform

#167

Post by 9wzYQbTYsAIc »

xpe wrote: post #127
9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for your PS feedback, it is appreciated and will be incorporated. My overall point is that if you don’t want data being captured that may provide data about your contacts, then dont opt-in to providing it. Informed consent is the bedrock upon which social science ethics rests.

Sure, I understand your point. Have you dug into the problems of data linkage attacks? (see questions above)

Not yet! I’m vacuously familiar with the basics, but I’m curious about the details and their relation to research design.

Will comment more fully as I find the energy.

Re: Rally, a novel privacy-first data sharing platform

#168

Post by thayne »

9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote: post #90
lucideer wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know you mean well but I think you completely missed the above commenters point. You've replied here with answers to address their (our?) potential concerns, but the commenter never said they had concerns about the project itself, rather that this particular blog post doesn't "sell" or explain the value add well. That's feedback on the project's communication strategy, not on what it's actually doing. > > Why? What…

> You seem to be confusing "theys". The question is what motivates participants, not what motivates researchers. Contrarily, you seem to be confusing “theys”, yourself. There exist participants that are motivated by participating in research that benefits society. Just like there exist individuals motivated by lending their computing resources to the various @Home research efforts.

But if the participants are limited to people who are motivated solely by participating in research, wouldn't that add significant bias to that research?

Re: Rally, a novel privacy-first data sharing platform

#169

Post by xpe »

9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote: post #161
kortilla wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you would not have seen that and would not have gotten emotionally triggered Don’t do that here. The comment is about Rally pretending to be about altruistic academic research while actually being a platform for Mozilla product development.

My reply predates this edit from the parent: > Sorry, I definitely did not put as much thought into my comment as I should have and I left out the critical piece of information that really ticked me off.

Such are the perils of edit logs not being available and/or not quoting what you are responding to.

Re: Rally, a novel privacy-first data sharing platform

#170

Post by 9wzYQbTYsAIc »

thayne wrote: post #168
9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You seem to be confusing "theys". The question is what motivates participants, not what motivates researchers. Contrarily, you seem to be confusing “theys”, yourself. There exist participants that are motivated by participating in research that benefits society. Just like there exist individuals motivated by lending their computing resources to the various @Home research efforts.

But if the participants are limited to people who are motivated solely by participating in research, wouldn't that add significant bias to that research?

Indeed, sampling bias is a large concern.

Nonetheless, much of psychology research conducted in the US has made do with ridiculous sampling bias - the US college student is anecdotally considered to be the most-studied population in the world.

Post reply on HN